2019 (7) TMI 783 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - goods valued on the ex-factory value whereas their contract for supply of goods was on FOR basis - inclusion of cost of freight and insurance in assessable value - Place of removal - Rule 5 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules 2000 read with Section 4 of Central Excise Act 1944 - HELD THAT - Whether the FOR prices are inclusive or not at the time of clearances is not the criteria for assessing the transaction value. The only possible criteria for the purpose is as to whether the property in goods stands transferred to the buyer at the time when the goods are cleared whether from the factory of the manufacturer its depot or warehouse or from any other place. No doubt the place can be the buyer s place as well but the criteria still remains the conclusion of sale. From the adjudicating authorities order itself it is apparent that except for inclusion of freight prices in the price of purchase every other formality of completing the sale got concluded at the time of clearance itself. It has been acknowledged in the Order as well as in the show cause notice that all the verifications approvals as were agreed to be required by the buyer also got conducted at the manufacturers factory itself - In the given circumstances the sale of impugned goods got completed prior the goods got cleared form the manufacturers factory. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Short payment of Central Excise duty due to incorrect valuation method - inclusion of freight and insurance charges in transaction value.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an Order-in-Appeal alleging short payment of Central Excise duty by the appellant due to not assessing the correct value as per Rule 5 of Central Excise Valuation Rules. The Department claimed that the appellant paid duty on ex-factory value while the contract was on FOR basis, including freight and insurance. Two show cause notices were issued for recovery of duty and penalties. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, but the Commissioner(Appeals) set it aside, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellant argued that the freight charges were included in the purchase value as per the contracts, making them part of the transaction value. They contended that the Commissioner(Appeals) erred in relying on a different case and requested the appeal to be allowed. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel highlighted a previous decision by the Tribunal where a similar issue was decided. They argued that the sale, including inspection and verification, occurred at the manufacturer's place, and transportation charges should not be included in the transaction value.

After hearing both parties, the Tribunal analyzed the relevant provisions, including the definition of 'transaction value' and 'place of removal' under the Central Excise Act. They referred to the Sale of Goods Act to determine when the property in goods is transferred to the buyer. The Tribunal concluded that the sale of goods was completed before clearance from the manufacturer's factory, as all formalities were concluded at that stage. They upheld the Commissioner(Appeals)' decision, distinguishing between relevant cases and finding no fault in the order. The Tribunal also referred to a previous decision supporting their conclusion, ultimately dismissing the appeal.

In summary, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the inclusion of freight charges in the transaction value was not warranted based on the completion of the sale before goods were cleared from the manufacturer's factory. The decision was supported by legal provisions and previous tribunal rulings, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.